|
Post by jamirie on Sept 28, 2018 20:22:25 GMT
More garbage from the consultation technical note. The 242 is being diverted to Aldgate. How can TfL be adding a peak time bus from Liverpool St? This is a nonsense. The 242 currently runs every 10 mins evenings and Sundays. TfL apparently believe it runs every 6 minutes. This is just shambolic stuff. How are the public supposed to respond to such a badly written, inaccurate document? Is there no-one actually in charge of this process who has required that it all gets properly checked before it is put in front of the public? The Evening Standard (and others who are reporting on this consultation) are stating that the 242 is having a frequency increase.
|
|
|
Post by Lukeo on Sept 28, 2018 20:37:05 GMT
Had to laugh at those who think the changes aren’t too bad - glad your not on low wage having to commute into Central London! Would you mind elaborating on how these changes specifically affect those on low wages who commute in to central? You make it sound as though reaching certain areas by bus will be rendered impossible, but that's not the case, so I don't see the problem? I used to work in Victoria on a low wage, and my commute consisted of 3 trains/tubes, i.e. 2 changes, which wouldn't increase the journey price. The hopper fare means that such changes can now be done for bus journeys too, without extra cost. May also be worth pointing out that there is still a daily bus cap of £4.50 too. So lets say for example I currently commute to Tottenham Court Road via Route 134; I'll now have to change bus, but it will not cost me extra to do so. Thus I am at no monetary disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 28, 2018 20:39:18 GMT
The Evening Standard (and others who are reporting on this consultation) are stating that the 242 is having a frequency increase. Good grief - it's being cut every day of the week plus the hidden cuts to early morning buses that never feature in the analysis but are a consequence of lower peak and daytime frequencies. I note also that the 149 is being increased M-F but is being CUT on Saturdays and Sundays! Have they never seen the loadings on that route on a Sunday?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 28, 2018 20:44:47 GMT
More garbage from the consultation technical note. The 242 is being diverted to Aldgate. How can TfL be adding a peak time bus from Liverpool St? This is a nonsense. The 242 currently runs every 10 mins evenings and Sundays. TfL apparently believe it runs every 6 minutes. This is just shambolic stuff. How are the public supposed to respond to such a badly written, inaccurate document? Is there no-one actually in charge of this process who has required that it all gets properly checked before it is put in front of the public? I looked again at the equalities impact assessment - for the 53, the main text says interchange would be at stop A St Thomas Hospital County Hall. This is incorrect - other text makes it clear that stop A at Lower Marsh is the final stop. It's also notable that, as far as I can tell, the EqIA seems to take no account of the risk that the wheelchair space may already be occupied on a connecting bus, and the overall loss of wheelchair space capacity.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 28, 2018 20:50:28 GMT
Had to laugh at those who think the changes aren’t too bad - glad your not on low wage having to commute into Central London! Would you mind elaborating on how these changes specifically affect those on low wages who commute in to central? You make it sound as though reaching certain areas by bus will be rendered impossible, but that's not the case, so I don't see the problem? I used to work in Victoria on a low wage, and my commute consisted of 3 trains/tubes, i.e. 2 changes, which wouldn't increase the journey price. The hopper fare means that such changes can now be done for bus journeys too, without extra cost. May also be worth pointing out that there is still a daily bus cap of £4.50 too. So lets say for example I currently commute to Tottenham Court Road via Route 134; I'll now have to change bus, but it will not cost me extra to do so. Thus I am at no monetary disadvantage. Well there are two aspects to this. - One is the Hopper fare. On some journeys people will not benefit from it because the first leg will be longer than 1 hour. TfL themselves acknowledge this in their supporting documentation to this consultation. They say they are "investing ways to reduce this" but don't specify a date by which they will reach a conclusion. If people manage to get a "hop" on the way home they will still have paid £4.50 in fares whereas today they would only pay £3 in total. Caps are irrelevant in this analysis but paying 50% more than you used to do is. For some people that will build up over a week. - Second is the wait time for a connection. In theory this should be lowish at some locations. However where is the guarantee that people will be able to board the first bus that arrives? There isn't one. If you have to wait for 2, 3, 4 or even 5 buses before you can board you run the risk of not achieving a "hop" but far, far worse you run the risk of being late to work. That will be a killer for a lot of people who are on poor terms and conditions and where there is zero flexibility about the time of starting work. That is where I would be most concerned for people. How much earlier do people have to get up and get out of the door just because TfL cannot be bothered to provide a through service as they do now. I would not want to be someone on the 171 route who had to change buses at Elephant and Castle in the hope of being able to get a connection in the height of the peak. I note with some concern that TfL's justification for axeing the 171 north of Elephant is based on the corridor being overbussed by 10 bph and also declining usage *off peak and weekends*. So why are you cutting the peak time bus then?? Retain the peak time service and axe the rest if you really, really must. I'd happily acknowledge that Holborn is not the busiest of places at the weekend but in the rush hour - err nope! The Mayor may believe his fare initiatives are virtuous BUT they are far from perfect. People are at risk of paying more under these proposals. I doubt the Mayor wants to be responsible for people losing their jobs due to his transport changes but that is what may well happen. That sits very badly for a Labour Mayor.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Sept 28, 2018 20:51:24 GMT
We all knew this was coming, and after sitting on a 9 for an hour between Trafalgar Square and Kensington recently, because of traffic, the mayor needs can pat himself on the back. Because Central London is the slowest I can ever remember. Oh it's really bad. I now have to commute once a week on the 176 to Tottenham Court Road. A 'quick' journey from just past Dulwich Library to TCR during the workday now takes 75 minutes (it's timetabled for 77 minutes from my stop) with huge padding between Trafalgar Square and TCR of 15 minutes to go along the Charing Cross Road. Last week, it took me 95 mins to get to TCR at lunchtime with 25 mins of that stuck on Charing Cross Road. I remember when it'd take 45 mins to get to Trafalgar Square during the daytime and 50 to TCR. The 20mph speed limits have a lot to answer for.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 28, 2018 20:52:31 GMT
I looked again at the equalities impact assessment - for the 53, the main text says interchange would be at stop A St Thomas Hospital County Hall. This is incorrect - other text makes it clear that stop A at Lower Marsh is the final stop. It's also notable that, as far as I can tell, the EqIA seems to take no account of the risk that the wheelchair space may already be occupied on a connecting bus, and the overall loss of wheelchair space capacity. I haven't got as far as the EIA yet. I'm busy drowning in the accuracy and flummery of the technical note. I fully expect it to be a bland "white wash" of a document that is not robust. Your observations on it would appear to be reinforce my expectations.
|
|
|
Post by dennistas on Sept 28, 2018 21:04:57 GMT
Just finished work and took time to read this from start to finish. I fully agree with vjaska. I also had a laugh at people who think the changes "aren't too bad". Before becoming a bus driver I worked in the city as security in a bank therefore I really understand how much these changes are going to affect commuters especially low paid commuters.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 28, 2018 21:18:50 GMT
Just finished work and took time to read this from start to finish. I fully agree with vjaska. I also had a laugh at people who think the changes "aren't too bad". Before becoming a bus driver I worked in the city as security in a bank therefore I really understand how much these changes are going to affect commuters especially low paid commuters. Surely you must have noticed the decline in bus usage in Central London? And there is likely to be another big drop when Crossrail is fully open. I genuinely don't know what people expect to happen?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 28, 2018 21:34:24 GMT
The 853 blog let the cat out of the bag already, but these changes will do nothing to attract people to the bus network. Obviously TfL need to make cost savings, which is highlighted in their analysis of each cut, but the irony is that the hopper fare has made these cuts possible and the fare freeze has made the cuts deeper than if TfL were able to increase fares. Thank you Sadiq 👍
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 28, 2018 21:44:13 GMT
More drivel and inaccuracy. This from the section about the 67, 242 and 149 Route 476?? Err what? and yet more Since when did the 46 cross the Thames? More inaccuracy.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Sept 28, 2018 21:48:16 GMT
The 853 blog let the cat out of the bag already, but these changes will do nothing to attract people to the bus network. Obviously TfL need to make cost savings, which is highlighted in their analysis of each cut, but the irony is that the hopper fare has made these cuts possible and the fare freeze has made the cuts deeper than if TfL were able to increase fares. Thank you Sadiq 👍 What's to say that a Tory Mayor wouldn't have the same issues as Sadiq has? TfL has lost funding from central Government, fares freeze and hopper fare or not, something had to give. The congestion charge no longer works, considering how bad traffic is in Zone 1, passengers by their own choice have switched to rail modes as standing on a cramped tube or train is preferable to sitting in a traffic jam to go a mile down the road for 25-30 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Sept 28, 2018 21:50:47 GMT
Here’s what I find stupid about the 388. Okay yes, I can fully believe that the extension to E&C had made the route pretty unreliable. BUT: it had an increase of 1 MILLION journeys last year, which is a BIG increase. With numbers like that surely the extension can be deemed as a success? So why the hell undo it?
The utter disgracefulness of the written presentation of this consultation is a clear indication of an organisation in total disarray.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 28, 2018 21:52:31 GMT
Here’s what I find stupid about the 388. Okay yes, I can fully believe that the extension to E&C had made the route pretty unreliable. BUT: it had an increase of 1 MILLION journeys last year, which is a BIG increase. With numbers like that surely the extension can be deemed as a success? So why the hell undo it? The utter disgracefulness of the written presentation of this consultation is a clear indication of an organisation in total disarray. But hen the question arises on if the increase was all along the Elephant extension, you do have the London Wall reroute which also could have brought in a few extra passengers or it might have naturally just had a big increase.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Sept 28, 2018 22:04:30 GMT
Here’s what I find stupid about the 388. Okay yes, I can fully believe that the extension to E&C had made the route pretty unreliable. BUT: it had an increase of 1 MILLION journeys last year, which is a BIG increase. With numbers like that surely the extension can be deemed as a success? So why the hell undo it? The utter disgracefulness of the written presentation of this consultation is a clear indication of an organisation in total disarray. I never felt ashamed to work at Bus HQ in LT days, even though I didn't always agree with changes that were being made, because I could see that serious efforts were being made to address the concerns of the time e.g. falling passenger numbers, traffic congestion (sounds familiar?) and staff shortages, which were quite severe in some areas.If I worked for the modern equivalent, I'd try to keep it really quiet! There are now clear signs that few (if any) of the people making the decisions have any experience of either running buses or, even, travelling on them, and that is unforgivable.
|
|